A Nonergodic Ground‐Motion Model for California with Spatially Varying Coefficients

Traditional probabilistic seismic‐hazard analysis as well as the estimation of ground‐motion models (GMMs) is based on the ergodic assumption, which means that the distribution of ground motions over time at a given site is the same as their spatial distribution over all sites for the same magnitude, distance, and site condition. With a large increase in the number of recorded ground‐motion data, there are now repeated observations at given sites and from multiple earthquakes in small regions, so that assumption can be relaxed. We use a novel approach to develop a nonergodic GMM, which is cast as a varying‐coefficient model (VCM). In this model, the coefficients are allowed to vary by geographical location, which makes it possible to incorporate effects of spatially varying source, path, and site conditions. Hence, a separate set of coefficients is estimated for each source and site coordinate in the data set. The coefficients are constrained to be similar for spatially nearby locations. This is achieved by placing a Gaussian process prior on the coefficients. The amount of correlation is determined by the data. The spatial correlation structure of the model allows one to extrapolate the varying coefficients to a new location and trace the corresponding uncertainties. The approach is illustrated with the Next Generation Attenuation‐West2 data set, using only Californian records. The VCM outperforms a traditionally estimated GMM in terms of generalization error and leads to a reduction in the aleatory standard deviation by ∼40%, which has important implications for seismic‐hazard calculations. The scaling of the model with respect to its predictor variables such as magnitude and distance is physically plausible. The epistemic uncertainty associated with the predicted ground motions is small in places where events or stations are close and large where data are sparse. Online Material: Maps showing the spatially varying coefficients across California and tables of correlation functions.

[1]  S. Akkar,et al.  A Local Ground-Motion Predictive Model for Turkey, and Its Comparison with Other Regional and Global Ground-Motion Models , 2010 .

[2]  Norman A. Abrahamson,et al.  Repeatable Site and Path Effects on the Ground‐Motion Sigma Based on Empirical Data from Southern California and Simulated Waveforms from the CyberShake Platform , 2015 .

[3]  James N. Brune,et al.  Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis without the Ergodic Assumption , 1999 .

[4]  J. Bommer,et al.  Comparisons among the five ground-motion models developed using RESORCE for the prediction of response spectral accelerations due to earthquakes in Europe and the Middle East , 2014, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering.

[5]  Norman A. Abrahamson,et al.  Ground-Motion Attenuation Model for Small-To-Moderate Shallow Crustal Earthquakes in California and Its Implications on Regionalization of Ground-Motion Prediction Models , 2010 .

[6]  W. Silva,et al.  NGA-West2 Database , 2014 .

[7]  Norman A. Abrahamson,et al.  Summary of the ASK14 Ground Motion Relation for Active Crustal Regions , 2014 .

[8]  L. Danciu,et al.  Engineering Ground-Motion Parameters Attenuation Relationships for Greece , 2007 .

[9]  Jonathan P. Stewart,et al.  NGA-West2 Equations for Predicting PGA, PGV, and 5% Damped PSA for Shallow Crustal Earthquakes , 2014 .

[10]  Carl E. Rasmussen,et al.  Gaussian processes for machine learning , 2005, Adaptive computation and machine learning.

[11]  K. Campbell,et al.  NGA-West2 Ground Motion Model for the Average Horizontal Components of PGA, PGV, and 5% Damped Linear Acceleration Response Spectra , 2014 .

[12]  Adrian Rodriguez-Marek,et al.  Analysis of Single-Station Standard Deviation Using the KiK-net Data , 2011 .

[13]  Gail M. Atkinson,et al.  Single-Station Sigma , 2006 .

[14]  Linda Al Atik,et al.  Epistemic Uncertainty for NGA-West2 Models: , 2014 .

[15]  Norman A. Abrahamson,et al.  Repeatable Source, Site, and Path Effects on the Standard Deviation for Empirical Ground-Motion Prediction Models , 2011 .

[16]  Frank Scherbaum,et al.  Manifold aligned ground motion prediction equations for regional datasets , 2014, Comput. Geosci..

[17]  Julian J. Bommer,et al.  Why Do Modern Probabilistic Seismic-Hazard Analyses Often Lead to Increased Hazard Estimates? , 2006 .

[18]  John G. Anderson,et al.  A Methodology to Improve Ground-Motion Prediction Equations by Including Path Corrections , 2011 .

[19]  Julian J. Bommer,et al.  The Variability of Ground-Motion Prediction Models and Its Components , 2010 .

[20]  C. F. Sirmans,et al.  Spatial Modeling With Spatially Varying Coefficient Processes , 2003 .

[21]  Hideo Aochi,et al.  Assessing Components of Ground‐Motion Variability from Simulations for the Marmara Sea Region (Turkey) , 2016 .

[22]  D. Bindi,et al.  Ground motion prediction equations derived from the Italian strong motion database , 2011 .

[23]  Tobias Scheffer,et al.  Varying-coefficient models with isotropic Gaussian process priors , 2015, ArXiv.

[24]  Carl E. Rasmussen,et al.  Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning (GPML) Toolbox , 2010, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[25]  Melanie Anne Walling,et al.  Non-ergodic probabilistic seismic hazard analysis and spatial simulation of variation in ground motion , 2009 .

[26]  Robert R. Youngs,et al.  Update of the Chiou and Youngs NGA Model for the Average Horizontal Component of Peak Ground Motion and Response Spectra , 2014 .

[27]  Timothy D. Ancheta,et al.  NGA-West2 Research Project , 2014 .

[28]  Gail M. Atkinson,et al.  Observations on Regional Variability in Ground-Motion Amplitudes for Small-to-Moderate Earthquakes in North America , 2009 .

[29]  J. Baker,et al.  Correlation model for spatially distributed ground‐motion intensities , 2009 .

[30]  Peter J. Stafford,et al.  Crossed and Nested Mixed-Effects Approaches for Enhanced Model Development and Removal of the Ergodic Assumption in Empirical Ground-Motion Models , 2014 .

[31]  Dario Slejko,et al.  Empirical Ground-Motion Attenuation Relations for the Eastern Alps in the Magnitude Range 2.5–6.3 , 2005 .